ShareThis Page
News Columnists

How not to run for VP

| Thursday, Feb. 28, 2008


Minnesota's Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty carefully prepared his plan for controlling greenhouse gas emissions to present it at the annual Washington winter meeting of governors. That effort coincided with Pawlenty's fast-rising prospects to become Sen. John McCain's choice for vice president. But behind closed doors, his fellow governors from energy-producing states complained so vigorously that the scheme was buried.

Pawlenty's position as chairman of the National Governors Association (NGA) may prove his undoing. While party insiders sing his praises as ideal to be McCain's running mate, leading conservative Republican governors have been less than pleased with him. Pawlenty has collaborated with the NGA vice chairman, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, in a fat economic stimulus package, as well as the energy proposal.

The 47-year-old Pawlenty long has been talked about as a good fit for the 71-year-old McCain. He is the most conservative Minnesota governor since Theodore Christianson in 1925. Elected for two terms in a slightly blue state, Pawlenty is seen by supporters as a plus for McCain in the Democrat upper Midwest if added to the ticket.

He gets high grades from conservative fanciers of Republican horse flesh, such as Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman and fellow Minnesotan Vin Weber. Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist approves of Pawlenty's record, save for one cigarette tax hike. The censorious Cato Institute graded him "C" for fiscal responsibility in his first term (compared with "F" for Mike Huckabee of Arkansas).

Pawlenty has largely avoided the fate of Republicans who are elected governor on a conservative platform and then in office fall prey to spending projects and concomitant tax increases. But he has become entwined in the NGA's buddy system by serving as its chairman. That allied him with Rendell and put him at odds with conservative Republican colleagues. Govs. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Mark Sanford of South Carolina were not happy when Pawlenty and Rendell presented an NGA-sponsored sweetening of the Bush administration's stimulus package by $6 billion in federal Medicaid funding and $6 billion in a flexible block grant.

As co-chairman of the NGA's energy committee, Pawlenty proposed statewide goals of reduced CO2 emissions. But at a "governors only" session opening the NGA meeting, Pawlenty encountered adamant opposition. Barbour led the way for governors from energy-producing states, including Republican Rick Perry of Texas and Democrat Steve Beshear of Kentucky. The issue of greenhouse gases was "set aside," Pawlenty told me, "because we realized there was no consensus."

McCain, who has co-sponsored a global warming bill with his friend and supporter Independent Democrat Sen. Joseph Lieberman, got more of the same over dinner with Republican governors that night. They made clear that energy was a major issue and that they hoped McCain would be sensitive to energy producers. By all accounts, the prospective presidential nominee was receptive.

On that same Saturday, The Wall Street Journal ran an essay by Minneapolis-St. Paul talk-show host Jason Lewis critiquing Pawlenty's record -- including renewable energy mandates -- as too liberal for him to be McCain's vice president. "If you look at my record as a whole," Pawlenty told me the next day, "I would be astonished if I was not considered conservative." As for Lewis, "He doesn't think I'm conservative because I'm a proponent of clean energy, and, from my standpoint, we've got a national security issue."

"We loved Ronald Reagan, but he made some compromises along the way," Pawlenty said, adding, "We don't have a big enough party to be throwing people overboard." Presumably, that also means coal and oil interests.

Robert Novak is a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me